Letters -- Published Dec. 30, 2010

As someone who has fancied himself as a sports aficionado, can I offer an explanation for the reverence for the Michael Vick resurrection?

As someone who has fancied himself as a sports aficionado, can I offer an explanation for the reverence for the Michael Vick resurrection?

I can see it now, Mr. Vick's legacy. The time tested adage: It is not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog! The Philadelphia fans might boo Santa Claus, but they will never boo a pit bull. What a dramatic monologue addressing the reality check on the moral integrity of sports world fanatics. The visceral excitement of canines fighting to the death can now be translated to the makeup of one Michael Vick.

He embodies the traits of fight to the death. He has sacrificed his financial well-being and endured prison time to demonstrate the heartfelt commitment to death as an option: "The losing dog has to die, even if at my own hands." Do you wonder why his teammates might play with a "life at stake" abandon?

Eugene Jackson

Stockton

Kudos to The Record for the very interesting commentaries published in the Dec. 18 newspaper.

The three pieces touched on very different topics, and all three were interesting, particularly the exchange between Bill Herrin and Lee Miller. I earned an undergraduate degree in wildlife and fisheries biology before going on to medical school, and I continue to have an interest and great concern for environmental issues.

My son, an international affairs grad student with a degree in economics from UC Berkeley, doesn't hesitate to set me straight on issues of economics. These areas of interest and concern are not mutually exclusive, and in principle, there is a way forward for public policy to include fundamental truths from both sides.

Our society needs to see that difficult problems can be approached thoughtfully using verifiable facts from many disciplines.

What is most important is that the writers approach their subjects with intellectual honesty, each presenting their understanding of the real world as they experience it. They find ways to disagree without disrespect or cynicism. They base their discussions on facts, not ideologies!

I hope you will continue to print an ongoing discussion between Herrin and Miller. And I hope you will print other running dialogues from experienced and well-educated individuals like them so that we, your readers, can become better educated ourselves.

Charles R. McCormick

Stockton

» » »

This letter is in regard to Bill Herrin's rebuttal to Lee Miller's criticism of Herrin's article "Sleep well tonight, the future is probably bright," appearing Oct. 23.

The 2010 Global Hunger Index, produced by the International Food Policy Research Institute, says: "Despite the number of undernourished people in the world falling between 1990 and 2006, the number has crept up in recent years, with the data from 2009 showing more than one billion hungry people." That means we can only feed 6 billion out of almost 7 billion people. When we grow to 9 billion, nearly half the world's population will be hungry, unless some magical "fix" comes along.

Does Bill Herrin propose that we wait for technology to kick in to feed the 1 billion hungry? How long do we wait - until 2, 3, or 4 billion are hungry? Why should we have faith in Bill Herrin's reassurance when we already have let 1 billion people go hungry?

A simple, gentle, appropriate solution is to step up the already existing, very successful programs that provide voluntary family planning and contraception for those who want it, reproductive health care, women's empowerment and education.

In the meantime, we need to take care of the hungry now. How about asking people to give up meat? Or sponsor a farmer in the developing world?

Karen Gaia Pitts

overpopulation.org

Folsom

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.